Human right to sponge off UK: 3,200 criminals, failed asylum seekers and
benefit tourists can't be kicked out because of right to family life

Human rights law is demolishing every aspect
of Britain’s immigration controls, Government papers reveal.

Every year, more than 3,200 foreign criminals,
failed asylum seekers and EU ‘benefit tourists’ are using Labour’s Human Rights
Act to thwart Home Office attempts to remove migrants – or stop them arriving in
the first place.

The majority of cases are using the
controversial Article 8, ‘the right to a private or family life’.

Staying put: Some 3,200 people - among them failed
asylum seekers - are winning the right to stay in the UK because of
controversial human rights laws (file picture)

In the cases of almost 1,200 EU citizens, they
had no intention of working but were allowed to stay, potentially to enjoy a
life on benefits – because they have a wife, girlfriend or children here.

Ministers are so alarmed that they are
planning a potentially explosive review of the ‘family life’ defence, which
critics say is widely abused.

There has been a series of shocking cases of
foreign killers and other criminals cheating deportation.

But the first Home Office audit of the full
impact of the Human Rights Act has revealed it is sabotaging almost every part
of the immigration system.

Nepalese killer Rocky Gurung was allowed to remain
although he was a single adult with no children, who lived with his parents

In the last three months of 2010, 99 foreign
prisoners successfully claimed deporting them would breach their right to a
family life in Britain – the equivalent of almost 400 each year. It is four
times the previous estimate of 100 – which itself provoked outrage.

In addition, Article 8 thwarted the equivalent
of 132 asylum removals last year. The separate Article 3 – the right to
protection from ill-treatment – prevented the removal of the equivalent of 56
foreign criminals, and 16 asylum seekers.

The most shocking development, however, is the
way the right to a family life is impacting on the rest of the immigration
system.

Originally, the right to family life was
applied in strict circumstances – such as a migrant having married here, and had
children. In recent cases, this has been widened.

A Nepalese killer, Rocky Gurung, was allowed
to remain although he was a single adult with no children, who lived with his
parents.

A Sri Lankan robber was allowed to stay as he
has a girlfriend in Britain. One Bolivian was allowed to remain to care for his
pet cat.

In a letter to the Tory MP Dominic Raab, the
Home Office disclosed that the equivalent of almost 600 economic migrants who
had been denied a visa under the point-based system were using Article 8 to make
successful appeals.

They claim that, while working in the UK, they
have formed relationships in Britain.

If officials cannot remove migrants who are no
longer judged to benefit British business, it could significantly undermine the
Tory promise to cap economic migration.

In the equivalent of 120 cases, decisions by
the Home Office to deny a migrant settlement – which leads to a British passport
– were overturned using Article 8.

Amazingly, immigration judges were even
interfering in decisions involving 1,200 EU nationals. Under EU law, citizens of
other member states are free to settle in Britain provided they are either
self-sufficient, meaning they have enough money to support themselves, or hold a
job.

The rules are designed to prevent ‘benefit
tourism’. But, in the last three months of 2010, 292 EU citizens successfully
argued they have a human right to stay here without satisfying these conditions.

It gives them free access to the full benefits
system, including housing.

Disclosure: A letter to Tory MP Dominic Raab said
that almost 600 economic migrants who had been denied a visa were successful
with their appeals

They claim that they already have family or
partners living here, and must be reunited.

Beneficiaries range from citizens of the
original EU member states, such as France, to new members such as Poland.

Officials also lost the equivalent of almost
800 so-called ‘entry clearance’ cases last year – where migrants applying for
visas while abroad were turned down, but won on appeal by claiming they had a
right to join their family.

Last night, Mr Raab said: ‘This data shows the
right to family life under the Human Rights Act being abused to frustrate the
deportation orders of hundreds of serious criminals and undermine wider controls
on economic migration.’

Sir Andrew Green, of Migrationwatch, said:
‘This is not just the right to family life. It is the right to family life at
the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayer.’

In his letter to Mr Raab, Immigration Minister
Damian Green said: ‘The Government intends to consult later this year on family
migration and on the requirements which should be placed on foreign nationals
who wish to establish a family life in the UK.

'Whilst everyone has a right to respect for
their private life and family life under Article 8, it is not an absolute right,
and it is legitimate to interfere with that right when it is in the public
interest to do so.

‘This includes in particular cases where it is
necessary to maintain our immigration controls. The Government intends to
address these issues in the consultation.’

Any review involving the Human Rights Act is
likely to cause tensions within the Coalition.

In opposition, the Tories promised to replace
the Act with a British Bill of Rights after a series of failed deportation
cases. But the Lib Dems are opposed to the idea, which has been kicked into the
long grass.

Last night, the Home Office said: ‘We will
consult on the family route shortly and look at what requirements we should
place on foreign nationals who wish to establish a family life in the UK.’ The
figures cover cases where the Home Office was defeated in the appeals court.

Judge's appeal to European Court

A Supreme Court judge yesterday appealed to
European human rights judges to stop trying to force new laws on Britain.

Baroness Hale of Richmond said Strasbourg’s
campaign to give the prisoners the vote is ‘some way ahead’ of law and opinion
here.

And she said: ‘I have a fear that their
judgements, and those of the national courts which follow them, will
increasingly be defied by our governments and Parliaments.’

Stop interfering: A Supreme Court judge appealed to
the European Court of Human Rights to stop trying to force laws on Britain

Her warning to the judges of the European
Court of Human Rights is the first open rebuke by a serving member of the
Supreme Court, the 12-judges tribunal that took over from the Law Lords as the
highest court in Britain.

It appears to signal deepening unhappiness
among the senior judiciary at the readiness of the Strasbourg court to make law
for Britain. Her comments, in a speech at Gresham College, will carry extra
impact as she is regarded as a keen supporter of human rights.

Britain has never allowed convicted prisoners
to vote and Parliament has endorsed the ban. Strasbourg has given the Government
until October before it takes further action.